China and the US are now egregious exemplars that contradict the conventional wisdom on economic growth and liberal democracy.
The orthodoxy on economic growth is that, in addition to capital (physical, financial, and human), countries should have an appropriate and predictable regulatory and facilitating environment to unleash private enterprise. The orthodoxy on liberal democracy is that strong institutions, by promoting the fairness and predictability of the rule of law, will act as checks against the unpredictability of rule by laws enacted by autocratic rulers.
China, specifically under Xi Jinping, and the US, under Donald Trump 2.0, have comprehensively shattered these comforting orthodoxies that have come to underpin conventional wisdom and shape narratives on the polity and the economy.
China is a standout paradox in how capitalism and the private sector have flourished over the last three decades, with little of the institutional requirements that orthodox theories mandate as essential to economic growth. Despite its communist political system, the private sector dominates the country’s economy.
The private sector contributes over half of tax revenues, more than 60 per cent of GDP, over 70 per cent of innovations, 80 per cent of urban jobs, and 90 per cent of registered companies.
This has been despite an environment and bureaucratic system that would have been considered outright hostile to private enterprise in any other country.
Chinese entrepreneurs have always faced cycles of risk and reward, but now a single regulatory investigation, a shift in local political winds, or a liquidity squeeze can turn a challenging quarter into an existential threat… the lived reality for many entrepreneurs is one of precarious privilege. They may command wealth and influence now, but their long-term position is far from secure. The life cycle of a Chinese private firm is notoriously short, less than four years for SMEs, compared with eight in the US and more than twelve in Japan. And when a business fails, there is often no institutionalised way to shield the founder from total financial and reputational ruin… Laws on paper go only so far; in China, the political motives that guide bureaucrats ultimately decide enforcement.
It’s striking that this advice is being given to a country that has experienced three decades of spectacular economic growth, driven by the private sector, to emerge as the factory of the world and its second-largest economy
Entrepreneurs need tangible, enforceable protections: fair access to credit; and legal frameworks that allow businesses to fail without destroying their founders’ lives… it is about ensuring that risk-takers can survive to try again… The legal framework required is clear: establish a national personal bankruptcy regime that allows honest but insolvent business owners to discharge debts while retaining essential assets, enabling them to restart their careers; limit personal guarantees for corporate loans, particularly for SMEs, to prevent the automatic conflation of business and personal liability. Beijing must ensure transparent, predictable regulation, so enforcement actions are guided by clear rules rather than shifting political imperatives. It should strengthen due process protections for those under investigation, avoiding prolonged uncertainty that can be as damaging as a formal penalty… If those with influence and resources cannot secure a fair hearing, due process, or a dignified way to start again, what chance does the average citizen have?
Arguably, China’s most consequential (strategically important for other countries) economic achievements have all happened in the last decade, when Xi Jinping has pursued a brand of centralised capitalism punctuated with multiple rounds of unpredictable crackdowns. Its dominance in clean technologies, batteries, electric vehicles, and critical minerals, among others, has emerged over the last decade.
Yuen Yuen Ang’s works, which I have blogged about on several occasions, highlight in detail how successive Chinese governments have discarded orthodoxy and pursued practical and heterodox strategies to drive the country’s economic growth.
In the field of politics, the second administration of Donald Trump has spectacularly demolished all theories about the supposed bulwarks offered by institutional checks and balances. Janan Ganesh brilliantly captures the moment and underlines the importance of politics and winning elections as the only true check,
Consider Congress. It is the least trusted institution in America. Its Republican members are so deep in Trump’s pocket that most voted not to ratify Joe Biden’s election win in 2020. At a rate his predecessors never did, Trump invokes emergency measures, without much resistance from the legislature. Or take the judiciary. Trump has appointed a third of the Supreme Court, which has gone on to construe his powers and privileges generously. As for the federal executive itself, Trump gets to appoint 4,000 or so people to it, not just the cabinet and their immediate deputies. You will notice that little or none of the above is illegal. Before he violates a single rule, Trump can bend the state to his whim. What does that say about the state?
…. Institutions outside government have proven no harder for him to master. Business has been an alternative locus of power in the past, especially in America, where individuals can amass such large fortunes as to be able to look the president in the eye. Now, though, billionaires genuflect before Trump to secure favours or avoid punishments in a patronage economy, as do law firms. (“Big Law continues to bend the knee to President Trump,” boasted the White House spokeswoman in April. Imagine saying that deliberately, as opposed to being caught by a stray mic.) That leaves the media. Well, we try. But this isn’t Walter Cronkite’s era. So much news is now consumed via social media platforms whose owners were seated in front of cabinet nominees at Trump’s inauguration…
It is an old liberal instinct to take things outside of politics: for example, to establish as incontestable “rights” that should be argued for in the democratic realm. Another version of this mental crutch is the hope that “institutions”, within and without the state, will counteract a rogue leader. It is a reasonable hope. The founding scripture of the republic sets out exactly that system. But the evidence of the past eight months, during which Trump has imposed himself on civilian and not just official life, isn’t encouraging. Institutions are made up of human beings, not magic dust, and the president can appoint them or indirectly grind them down with pressure.
See also this. It’s said that the true mark of institutional strength is when it’s tested. It’s now amply clear that none of the American institutions has been able to resist the devastating intent of Trump 2.0.
After the definitive ideological takeover of the Supreme Court in his first term, Donald Trump has now set his sights on the US Federal Reserve Board.
Trump’s imprint is already present at the Fed. Two of its seven board members, Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman, were selected by him during his first term in office. This month, Adriana Kugler, who was tapped to be governor by former president Joe Biden, announced she was stepping down before the end of her term next year, prompting Trump to pick Stephen Miran, one of his closest economic advisers, to succeed her. If Trump succeeds in ousting Cook, whose term runs to 2038, it would give his nominees control of the seven-member board of governors. Moreover, the presidents of the 12 regional Feds, all of whom serve five-year terms, will need to be renewed at the end of February 2026. The decision to renew their terms lies with the Fed’s board.
The rate-setting FOMC consists of the seven-member Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and four of the remaining eleven Reserve Bank presidents who serve on a one-year rotating basis. While the heads of the regional Feds are selected locally, they must be approved every five years by the Board of Governors.
This raises the possibility of a complete capture of the Federal Reserve system, something that cannot be discounted given the political determination displayed so far. It also raises the possibility that we have now passed the peak of central independence ideology.
In the realm of the economy, institutional safeguards, especially the informal ones from the corporate world and the markets in general, were supposed to be invincible bulwarks. But all of them have fallen aside, even as ideals of competition, macroeconomic stability and predictability, and free-market principles have been ground down. The most surprising have been the markets, both bond and equity markets, which appear to be betting that Trump will only take it that far and pull back just in time. Even as new redlines are being crossed, it appears increasingly likely that they may be excessively optimistic in miscalculating the motivations and the moods behind these actions.
As I blogged here, the trade landscape of the world economy has been redrawn, mostly irreversibly, in just over six months. Alan Beattie writes about the unpredictability of Trump’s actions concerning the economy.
It’s now commonplace to say Trump’s shakedowns of trading partners and corporations for tax revenue (even entirely leaving aside the issue of his personal wealth) resemble a mafia boss or a crony-capitalist dictator in a developing country. It’s actually worse than that. Good mafia bosses and efficient autocrats may be extractive, but they are predictable. Trump’s raids on companies and governments on behalf of the US Treasury are capricious — consider his reported demand that Switzerland buy off the US tariffs with investments and his sudden 15 per cent levy on the chip companies Nvidia and AMD’s semiconductor sales to China. They create uncertainty that weakens the entire basis of business and trade.
And even the trade deals are filled with unpredictability.
The benefits that Trump offered in his tariff deals often fail to materialise or are disputed as soon as the deal is signed. The UK, one of the first countries to pay the US the equivalent of protection money in its agreement in May, is still waiting for some of the benefits in the form of zero tariffs for a portion of its steel exports. The Japan agreement in July headed straight into a fog of uncertainty over disputed provisions on investment and on import taxes. The EU kept complaining it didn’t know what Trump wanted — it’s a category error to assume he ever has coherent demands.
One of the earliest attempts to analyse southern Italy’s mafia, by the sociologist Diego Gambetta, posited that organised crime fulfils a function in a society marked by profound distrust. Paying protection money provides security of contract and the settling of disputes in an otherwise chaotic business environment. But the mafia has to be competent and reliable. Dealing with Trump often means not just an offer you can’t refuse but an offer you can’t rely on — sometimes an offer you can’t understand. If the EU’s tariffs were protection money on behalf of Ukraine, Trump glaringly failed to deliver the quid pro quo. Perhaps he simply inferred from the concession that the EU was a weakling to be trampled underfoot.
So much so that The Times has described the US President as the “newest activist investor”
President Trump has inserted the government into U.S. companies in extraordinary ways, including taking a stake in U.S. Steel and pushing for a cut of Nvidia’s and Advanced Micro Devices’ revenue from China. Last month, the Pentagon said it was taking a 15 percent stake in MP Materials, a large American miner of rare earths. And on Friday, Intel agreed to allow the U.S. government to take a 10 per cent stake in its business, worth $8.9 billion. These developments could herald a shift from America’s vaunted free-market system to one that resembles, at least in some corners, a form of state-managed capitalism more frequently seen in Europe and, to a different degree, China and Russia, say lawyers, bankers and academics steeped in the history of hostile takeovers and international business.
When an ultra-powerful President becomes the “activist investor”, the whole economy becomes available for deal-making in the manner he deems useful or appropriate.
In the US context, to the collapses of institutional checks and balances within the government, and that of the market restraints, one must add the breakdown of ideological bulwarks. It was thought that no matter what, the Republican and Democratic parties would always remain beholden to certain ideological strands. But the assault has demolished even this faith. In the context of the decision of the US government to take a stake in Intel, an FT article writes,
Trump has taken on that dealmaking role for himself, adopting a transactional approach to the presidency that has upended the US government’s treatment of private enterprise and shattered the Republican party’s free-market philosophy. On Friday, the president announced his latest deal: the US government would take a 10 per cent stake in struggling chipmaker Intel, using previously agreed federal grants to fund an $8.9bn equity investment. The move cuts directly across Republican orthodoxy, which touts the benefits of free-market capitalism and broadly objects to state interventions into corporate America.
The article describes these actions as part of the shift towards a form of “state-run capitalism”. In the circumstances, it may not be incorrect to argue that in the battle for global supremacy between the US and China, the Chinese model of capitalism with Chinese characteristics (essentially state-directed capitalism) appears to be winning, at least for now.
And we are not even talking about how a new normal may have come to be established in political rent-seeking. David Kirkpatrick of The New Yorker has investigated and found that the Trump family may have benefited by $3.4 billion from the Presidency to date.
For me, the examples of China and the US are good reminders about the tenuous foundations on which orthodox theories stand. It should serve as a powerful reminder about the limits to the great faith that we place in experts and expertise. Far from being expertise-driven, critical decisions on areas like liberalisation, outsourcing and off-shoring, immigration, technology adoption, etc., are prudent judgments that are essentially political choices. Technical expert advice is only one among the inputs that go into informing those political choices.
For more on this, I blogged here on the problems with the argument on technical expertise and central banking and its independence. I also blogged here, here, here, and here, questioning the wisdom of blind or excessive faith in expertise and experts.
Amidst all these critiques and lamentations about the breakdown of orthodoxy, we should not become blind to several desirable trends. As I have blogged on several occasions (here, here, and here), capitalism, trade liberalisation, globalisation, outsourcing, immigration, woke liberalism, etc., all clearly went to excessive extremes. Now, a much-needed recalibration is happening with vengeance. And some parts of the Trumpian makeover of the US economy and polity are being met with approbation from even traditional critics and opponents.
Mark Cuban, the billionaire investor and a supporter of Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential race, said Trump’s decision to push Nvidia and AMD to pay a portion of their China-related revenues to the state was a good redistributive move that should have been supported by Democrats. “This is a ‘billionaire’s tax’ structured as a royalty or sales tax on semiconductors from the most valuable company in the world, sold to China,” Cuban said on X. “Will this make up for the explosion of the deficits we face? Not as it stands now. Not close. But give him credit for knowing how those CEOs approach problems and opportunities, and using his leverage to generate tax revenues,” Cuban added. “POTUS is more progressive when it comes to taxation than anyone in the progressive wing of the Dems has ever been.”…
Bernie Sanders, the leftwing US senator, lauded Trump’s Intel deal, which mirrored a proposal he had made himself for the government to receive equity in return for subsidies granted under the 2022 Chips Act. “I am glad the Trump administration is in agreement with the amendment I offered three years ago,” said Sanders in a statement. “If microchip companies make a profit from the generous grants they receive from the federal government, the taxpayers of America have a right to a reasonable return on that investment.”
Two areas of particular interest are how Trump moves on Big Pharma and Big Tech. He has already committed to lowering US drug prices by up to 80%. In late July, he wrote to the 17 largest pharmaceutical companies, demanding binding commitments from them to lower drug prices by September 29.
The letters asked the groups to apply “most favoured nation” drug pricing to Medicaid, the US health programme for low-income people. They also asked drugmakers to offer new medicines at the same price in the US as in other developed countries, and offer direct-to-consumer drug sales that would “cut out middlemen” such as pharmacy companies.
What will happen on September 29? It also remains to be seen what happens with the ongoing antitrust actions against Big Tech. Contrary to what was widely believed, the Biden-era antitrust actions have continued. Landmark decisions on Google and Meta are expected anytime, which could dramatically revise decades-long paradigms on antitrust and makeover the competition landscape in the digital technology sector. It’ll be interesting to see how far this will be allowed to go once the first verdicts come. For example, will Trump intervene with deals that break up Google and Meta?
Successive democratic administrations compromised on their ideals and allowed these excesses to build up. And it has now taken a right-wing populist backlash to tame and recalibrate these forces. Liberals and progressives should take note.
Finally, the ongoing trends in China and the US are also a reminder about Marx’s famous quote in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, “Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past”. While both Xi Jinping and Donald Trump are creatures that emerged by harnessing the political forces unleashed by the underlying economic, social, and cultural conditions, their individual personalities and contributions to seize the moment and shape it in their favour should not be overlooked.
No comments:
Post a Comment